* US * wrote:
>
>
> You really don't know anything about that, do you.
What is the point of your question? Anyone who brings a damage upon
himself through his own carelessness ought to have no right to inflict
his damage on another party.
"At common law, contributory negligence was originally an absolute
defence. If a defendant successfully raised the defence, he would be
able to avoid liability for the tort completely. This could lead to
injustice where the negligence of a plaintiff or claimant was slight.
The defence of contributory negligence would prevent them from
recovering any damages at all.
Most jurisdictions in the United States have modified the doctrine,
either by court decision or by legislation and have accordingly changed
the name to comparative negligence wherein, rather than awarding no
damages at all, the jury reduces the compensation to be awarded by a
percentage reflecting the degree to which the plaintiff's negligence
contributed to cause the damages. Maryland, Alabama, North Carolina, and
the District of Columbia retain contributory negligence as a complete
defense to negligence. In England and Wales, the Law Reform
(Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 had a similar effect. Acts of the
claimant)."
[edit]
We have moved from Common Law to Insanity. Now any asshole who cannot
think straight or control his limbs can hire a lawyer and go diving into
deep pockets. This has really got to stop.
Bob Kolker
|
